Golden Gate Bridge - Legal To Fly or Not?

[MavicPeter]

I was finally able to make an unplanned visit to Treasure Island (thanks for the tips pelagic_one) yesterday with my family but could only fly for about 20 mins. (When you have a 7-month old baby they are going to determine your schedule!)
Here is a short video (still learning how to edit stuff) of the footage I was able to capture from my MA2:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Also quite the thunderstorm we had last night and into this morning.

Cheers everyone.

 

[MIGUELVM360]

I was finally able to make an unplanned visit to Treasure Island (thanks for the tips pelagic_one) yesterday with my family but could only fly for about 20 mins. (When you have a 7-month old baby they are going to determine your schedule!)
Here is a short video (still learning how to edit stuff) of the footage I was able to capture from my MA2:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Also quite the thunderstorm we had last night and into this morning.

Cheers everyone.

Great Video. liked the music also. come checkout www.youtube.com/miguelvm360 when your free

 

[usaken]

I live in San Rafael. The entire coast from Ft Funston, south of San Francisco all the way to above Bodega Bay is in some kind of no takeoff or landing restriction. There is a very short stretch from Dillon Beach north to just south of Bodega Bay that is OK to fly, but most of that area is inaccessible by car. Bodega Bay itself is a county park and the area north To where HW1 turns inland is state park. So its pretty rough for drone pilots. mountian bikes are OK as well as dogs and pets. We drone pilots simply dont have enough of us to have any political power. We pay for these parks with our taxes and seems to me the park authorities should make areas for us to fly. To be fair, there is a tiny parking lot north of Muir Beach called Muir Beach Overlook that used to be drone legal. I do not know the current status. In my opinion, it is completely unsuitable for drone operation.

 

[wco81]

Anyone trying to fly these days?

Visibility in the South Bay is poor and you can smell the smoke from fires up north.

 

[Corsair415]

The GGNRA has laws preventing anyone from launching or landing a UAS from that land. That's it. No airspace restrictions over that land by the FAA.

I just got my first drone a couple weeks ago, and have only flown from my backyard, and I’m trying to be clear on things before venturing further out. From what I’m understanding of what you wrote, the NPS prohibition of operating in the GGNRA is unenforceable as long as take off and land outside of it?

 

[Wilbur]

There are also minimums to be aware of. For example when flying over GGNRA coastline you can't fly below 1000' With our 400' maximum that makes flights from drones illegal. I highly recommend getting a sectional map to help with all the different rules in this area.

 

[MavicPeter]

There are also minimums to be aware of. For example when flying over GGNRA coastline you can't fly below 1000' With our 400' maximum that makes flights from drones illegal. I highly recommend getting a sectional map to help with all the different rules in this area.

I'm not sure that's correct. AFAIK, you cannot launch, land, or operate a UAS in the GGNRA. There's nothing about a minimum altitude restriction:

GGNRA is a No Drone Zone - Golden Gate National Recreation Area (U.S. National Park Service)

drone

www.nps.gov

You might be confusing the GGNRA with NOAA designated "National Marine Sanctuaries" over the US West Coast, which do have such "minimum altitude" restriction:

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) NOAA Regulated Overflight Zones of West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries | Office National Marine Sanctuaries

These FAQs were designed to address NOAA regulations pertaining to low-altitude motorized flight within four national marine sanctuaries on the west coast of the continental United States.

sanctuaries.noaa.gov

In the case of the NOAA minimum altitude restrictions, the FAA explicitly said that they do not consider this an infringement of FAA's authority to regulate the national airspace.

 

[wco81]

Are there marine sanctuaries near the GOT TO GO NOW, TALK TO YOU LATER. Bridge?

 

[Citizen Flier]

I would love to be able to fly over the GGB (I live nearby). But so would 99,999 others. If it was legal there, every night would be like a swarm of giant LED flashing mosquitos -that would occasionally crash onto the cars & pedestrians below (as extrapolated from the daily woe count of gravity fails in this forum). Just grab a nice camera & snap away from the unlimited surrounding vantage points. Then you only have to worry about falling off a cliff while changing lenses.

 

[DStanworth]

My name is Danny, I live in Santa Rosa. I would love to talk with you about joining up with you sometime for anything like this in the Bay Area. Also if you ever get up this way feel free to hit me up. Thanks

I'm down to get together with anyone as well. I am always flying my drone in SF. www.dennisstanworth.com

 

[DStanworth]

Info is on the VFR sectional and Airmap, paints an easy enough situation.

Can you photograph the GGB? Yes, you can. (Safe distance, so no flying over it and taking 90° down photos, tisk tisk)

Here's the hard part, good luck finding a TAKEOFF point close enough to maintian VLOS, the whole coast around the bridge is a National Park. San Fran has UAS laws all over the city and the populace is better informed than most. You won't get away with a quick out of VLOS flight to snap a pic. I also don't recommend it, there is so much air traffic in the area the risk isn't worth it.

If I really wanted a pic I'd pay someone with a boat to take me close enough for a few flights followed by a tour of the bay.View attachment 109105View attachment 109106Thank you for providing the facts here.

 

[DStanworth]

AirMap is NOT the definitive source of controlled airspace. It can be and frequently is wrong, just like the DJI FlySafe database is very wrong. Please see the previous posts in this thread about airspace authority. Only the FAA can control airspace. The closest controlled airspace to the GGB is SFO and that does not reach to the bridge itself.
The GGNRA has laws preventing anyone from launching or landing a UAS from that land. That's it. No airspace restrictions over that land by the FAA.


No is fine as long as they are actual laws and regulations. There is no such controlled airspace, or long-term TFRs/NOTAMs over or around the GGB. Thus it is legal to fly in the vicinity of the GGB as long as you are following ALL of the FAA regulations.


A bit dramatic but OK. In any case flying over moving vehicles or people IS against FAA regulations so in that regard, drones should not be flown over the GGB unless it is closed to everyone or it is a very rare time that no people or cars are on the roadway.


The giant steel bridge would not in any way impact the drone's signal unless you were incredibly close to it (as in a matter of feet or inches). I have flown close (within let's say 50 feet) to large bridges in this area and they have no effect on drones. The same holds for towers and ships. Once you move more than a few feet away, there are no issues at all.


Not over the bridge...in the vicinity of the bridge. Next to it. As long as you are not over cars or people.


True when they are stupid drone pilots that do not follow the actual regulations and end up crashing onto the bridge deck. However a competent pilot that follows the regulations should not be punished if they are doing things correctly. That is the point of such a slanted article. It was bashing drones and making misleading arguments.


All well and good, but still not the same vantage point of flying over the water at a few hundred feet of altitude NEXT TO the GBB and looking down.

OMG! Just the facts. You are amazing. Thank You!

 

[usaken]

I get so tired of articles stating that drone flying is illegal in one way or another. They often misinterpret local regulations stating no launching or landing on restricted property by incorrectly stating it‘s illegal to fly in that airspace.

The Golden Gate Bridge is one such spot. DJI has placed a proper geofence that prevents Mavics from taking off within the restricted zone imposed by the Golden Gate National Recreational Area. But nothing stops us from launching and landing outside the zone, take videos and pictures from a legal distance, then share our footage on social media. None of that is illegal, but uninformed authors will write click-bait articles making us look like criminals.

I came across this San Francisco Chronicle article from February, written by a commercial real estate author who doesn’t seem to know drones and associated regulations very much. He stated some common misconceptions that we’ve even read in this forum; so I commented on his article based on facts I’ve gleaned from reading very informed and valid posts by the professional aviators of our forum.

I am doing this for the sheer fun and slight adrenaline rush of planning that epic flight, capturing awesome images, and sharing with friends, family and fellow flyers. So let me know if you’d ever like to get together and simply fly with me and some other fellow forum members. Some of us have flown from over 75 legal locations around the greater Bay Area in 2020 alone. I didn’t buy these relatively expensive drones to have them sitting in a closet; so if you didn’t either, let’s get out there and enjoy a masked-up, socially-distanced flying experience with our Mavics!

Since this is an open, global forum, I look forward to your varying opinions. I’d also appreciate hearing from our longtime local (and visiting) flyers who fondly recall being able to fly around places like Ocean Beach, East Bay Regional Parks, Big Sur and the Golden Gate Bridge prior to current regulations.

Well, technically, while there is no FAA restrictions over the bridge, I dont see anywhere you could take off and land, fly to the bridge and stay within visual range of the bird. Maybe except from the bay waters from a boat. Then theres the issue of flying over people and cars. There is an area dead center of the bridge that shows outside GGNRA, but you would have to fly too close to cars to be in compliance. Also, I am sure the GG Police/CHP would be all over you like the preverbal shiny green suit. People on the blog are just trying to keep you out of trouble. NPS has and does seize birds. As far as beaches go, all coastal areas from old Ft Funston south of San Francisco to well north of Bodega Bay are under the jurisdiction of National Park Service, State Park system or Sonoma County Parks. All prohibit drone flights. There is a tiny parking lot high above Muir Beach that used to be drone OK, but someone told me recently that it is no more. I went there once, way too windy to fly. Another little spot is Dillon Beach, located between Pt Reyes and Bodega. Not much to film there and parking is very expensive. Also, you could take off from private property adjecent to the parks with permission, but would almost be impossible to keep your bird in sight Flying out to the beach.
I understand your frustration. We all pay for these parks with our taxes. The parks allow dogs and mountsin bikes and they should be making reasonable accommodation for us. the sierra club used to say take only pictures and leave only footprints. We dont even leave footprints. Im in San Rafael

 

[DStanworth]

Well, technically, while there is no FAA restrictions over the bridge, I dont see anywhere you could take off and land, fly to the bridge and stay within visual range of the bird. Maybe except from the bay waters from a boat. Then theres the issue of flying over people and cars. There is an area dead center of the bridge that shows outside GGNRA, but you would have to fly too close to cars to be in compliance. Also, I am sure the GG Police/CHP would be all over you like the preverbal shiny green suit. People on the blog are just trying to keep you out of trouble. NPS has and does seize birds. As far as beaches go, all coastal areas from old Ft Funston south of San Francisco to well north of Bodega Bay are under the jurisdiction of National Park Service, State Park system or Sonoma County Parks. All prohibit drone flights. There is a tiny parking lot high above Muir Beach that used to be drone OK, but someone told me recently that it is no more. I went there once, way too windy to fly. Another little spot is Dillon Beach, located between Pt Reyes and Bodega. Not much to film there and parking is very expensive. Also, you could take off from private property adjecent to the parks with permission, but would almost be impossible to keep your bird in sight Flying out to the beach.
I understand your frustration. We all pay for these parks with our taxes. The parks allow dogs and mountsin bikes and they should be making reasonable accommodation for us. the sierra club used to say take only pictures and leave only footprints. We dont even leave footprints. Im in San Rafael

quack quack

 

[Ranger#1]

I get so tired of articles stating that drone flying is illegal in one way or another. They often misinterpret local regulations stating no launching or landing on restricted property by incorrectly stating it‘s illegal to fly in that airspace.

The Golden Gate Bridge is one such spot. DJI has placed a proper geofence that prevents Mavics from taking off within the restricted zone imposed by the Golden Gate National Recreational Area. But nothing stops us from launching and landing outside the zone, take videos and pictures from a legal distance, then share our footage on social media. None of that is illegal, but uninformed authors will write click-bait articles making us look like criminals.

I came across this San Francisco Chronicle article from February, written by a commercial real estate author who doesn’t seem to know drones and associated regulations very much. He stated some common misconceptions that we’ve even read in this forum; so I commented on his article based on facts I’ve gleaned from reading very informed and valid posts by the professional aviators of our forum.

I am doing this for the sheer fun and slight adrenaline rush of planning that epic flight, capturing awesome images, and sharing with friends, family and fellow flyers. So let me know if you’d ever like to get together and simply fly with me and some other fellow forum members. Some of us have flown from over 75 legal locations around the greater Bay Area in 2020 alone. I didn’t buy these relatively expensive drones to have them sitting in a closet; so if you didn’t either, let’s get out there and enjoy a masked-up, socially-distanced flying experience with our Mavics!

Since this is an open, global forum, I look forward to your varying opinions. I’d also appreciate hearing from our longtime local (and visiting) flyers who fondly recall being able to fly around places like Ocean Beach, East Bay Regional Parks, Big Sur and the Golden Gate Bridge prior to current regulations.

Thank you for the information on fly in San Francisco area! I just bought a new DJI Air 2S, and looking for areas to fly. I live in Gilroy! Been checking FAA Charts, AirMap & KittyHawk apps for any restrictions on airspace in SF Bay Area. Very Inspiring for me to fly my DJI Air 2S.

 

[Julius Danziger]

I get so tired of articles stating that drone flying is illegal in one way or another. They often misinterpret local regulations stating no launching or landing on restricted property by incorrectly stating it‘s illegal to fly in that airspace.

The Golden Gate Bridge is one such spot. DJI has placed a proper geofence that prevents Mavics from taking off within the restricted zone imposed by the Golden Gate National Recreational Area. But nothing stops us from launching and landing outside the zone, take videos and pictures from a legal distance, then share our footage on social media. None of that is illegal, but uninformed authors will write click-bait articles making us look like criminals.

I came across this San Francisco Chronicle article from February, written by a commercial real estate author who doesn’t seem to know drones and associated regulations very much. He stated some common misconceptions that we’ve even read in this forum; so I commented on his article based on facts I’ve gleaned from reading very informed and valid posts by the professional aviators of our forum.

I am doing this for the sheer fun and slight adrenaline rush of planning that epic flight, capturing awesome images, and sharing with friends, family and fellow flyers. So let me know if you’d ever like to get together and simply fly with me and some other fellow forum members. Some of us have flown from over 75 legal locations around the greater Bay Area in 2020 alone. I didn’t buy these relatively expensive drones to have them sitting in a closet; so if you didn’t either, let’s get out there and enjoy a masked-up, socially-distanced flying experience with our Mavics!

Since this is an open, global forum, I look forward to your varying opinions. I’d also appreciate hearing from our longtime local (and visiting) flyers who fondly recall being able to fly around places like Ocean Beach, East Bay Regional Parks, Big Sur and the Golden Gate Bridge prior to current regulations.

I had a good view of the Bridge last week by flying fromSausalito

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

Generally newspaper articles are vetted and fact checked before publishing. That is why I wanted to see what misconceptions were stated. I read the entire article and honestly I see no such statements. Yes the article is written in such a way to make it seem to the uneducated reader that pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge by drone are illegal. However, nothing he explicitly states in the article is false. He plainly states that launching and landing from within the boundaries of the Recreation Area is illegal. The article also clearly states that only the FAA regulates airspace. One sentence also mentions that flying over the bridge deck is generally illegal due to FAA regulations preventing flight over people and also moving cars. One could possibly time it just right to traverse across the bridge when there is a gap, but that is a fine line with a very busy bridge.

What is definitely misleading is how he complains about these pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge being posted online and implying that it is illegal. He never actually says it is illegal though. The fear-mongering about drones crashing into various structures isn't really balanced either, but again it's not fiction.

So even though I don't think the tone and implications of the article are fair to the UAS community, I don't see any factually incorrect statements in the article. It is extremely slanted and far from impartial, but it isn't false either.

Good reply but it was your opening sentence that got me on alert! Fact checked news reporting? I’ve got enough years on me to be able to recall an era when there were real, intelligent, unbiased investigative reporters who found a trail and then followed it, unearthing all manner of secrets and information along the way. Sadly, in 2021, the reader (or viewer) has to do their own fact checking now, usually by watching 4 or 5 alternative “news” sources in print, TV and online media. That in itself is a good thing, but not being able to trust and believe things reported these days is appalling, especially when it comes via supposedly professional organisations. There are too many media and political interests pushing their own agendas. (That’s when we go and fly our drones!) Cheers ????

 

[akdrone]

Folks may want to look carefully with regard to Hwy 101. While it is within a national park the highway and pull outs may not be part of the national park and may be legal to fly from. You can find my discussion of Chugach State Forest which does not allow drone flights, but per their representative the highway that passes through and the pull-offs that are on the highway are not legally part of the park and therefore not illegal to fly from. Thus one can launch from a pullout (as I did a few days ago) and fly over the park legally. That says nothing with regard to whether there are in fact pull outs for 101 that are large enough and could provide a legal, -safe- place to fly from, but it does seem possible and even likely that highways and their pullouts that traverse parks are not legally part of the park itself and therefore may be legal to launch from. No need to bring up all the potential problems with such a scenario but purely in terms of where it -might- be legal, I suggest public highways and their pullouts may be possible.

 

[hhung516]

Folks may want to look carefully with regard to Hwy 101. While it is within a national park the highway and pull outs may not be part of the national park and may be legal to fly from. You can find my discussion of Chugach State Forest which does not allow drone flights, but per their representative the highway that passes through and the pull-offs that are on the highway are not legally part of the park and therefore not illegal to fly from. Thus one can launch from a pullout (as I did a few days ago) and fly over the park legally.

Brilliant!
Not trying to resurrect an old thread but what about take off and land on the bridge itself? The map clearly shows the middle section of the GGB is not part of the GGNRA. Sure you have to get there carrying your bird via the pedestrian walkways, but if too far to walk, one can always ride a bike LOL.

 

[Meta4]

Not trying to resurrect an old thread but what about take off and land on the bridge itself?

Launching from a large steel structure would probably cause some other problems that you'd need to be aware of.